Disposed

Annalakshmi v. The District Collector

Madras HC20 Aug 2020WP/11332/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the mutation of revenue records regarding ancestral property while a partition suit was pending for default. The court directed the petitioner to file a formal representation to the revenue authority instead of seeking immediate restraint.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to submit a representation to the Thasildar, who is directed to call interested parties, hold an enquiry, and decide within eight weeks.

Annalakshmi Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.08.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P.No.11332 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.11663 of 2019

Annalakshmi

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1 The District Collector,
Villupuram
2 The Thasildar
Ulundurpet.
3 Karpagam
W/o.Ganesan Serndanadu Main Road
Senthamangalam Village Ulundurpet Taluk.
4 N.Manjini Kounder
S/o.Narayanasamy Perumal Koil Street
Alankuppam Village Uzhavarkarai
Puducherry State. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent not to mutate any revenue records including patta in patta No.375 in Survey Nos.45/1B - 0.61 ares (new No.45/1B1 - 0.30.50 ares) situate at Deviyanandal Village, Ulundurpet Taluk Villupuram District.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Suresh

¶12

For Respondents: Mr.J.Purushothaman,

¶13

Government Advocate – for RR 1 & 2

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of writ of Mandamus, forbearing the second respondent not to mutate the revenue records with regard to the subject property.

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that the subject property is an ancestral property, in which all the legal heirs have a share. The petitioner along with her sisters, filed a suit in O.S.No.197 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Villupuram and later the suit was transferred to the file of

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Page numbers

¶18

Sub Court, Ulundurpet and renumbered as O.S.No.21 of 2017. This suit came to be dismissed for default on 14.11.2018 and according to the petitioner, an application to restore the suit has been filed in I.A.No.321 of 2019 and this application is pending. In the mean time, the third and fourth respondents were attempting to deal with the property and effect change in the revenue records. The petitioner sent a legal notice to the second respondent calling upon him not to effect any mutation of revenue records. The apprehension of the petitioner is that inspite of the objection given by the petitioner, there is no response from the second respondent and the private respondents are taking effective steps to get the revenue records mutated. Left with no other alternative, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for the aforesaid prayer.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents.

¶20

Admittedly in this case, the suit was dismissed for default and an application has been filed by the petitioner along with the other plaintiffs, to restore the suit and the same is pending. The legal notice issued by the petitioner cannot be taken to be a representation and obviously the second respondent cannot act upon the same. Therefore, it will be more appropriate for the petitioner to make a representation to the second respondent so that the second respondent can consider the same in accordance with law and take a decision on the objections made by the petitioner.

¶21

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation to the second respondent. The second respondent, on receipt of the representation, shall deal with the same after issuing notice to the third and fourth respondents and all other interested parties and shall conduct an enquiry and take a decision in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner. The petitioner at the time of giving representation, shall also send a copy of this order to the second respondent.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

Page numbers

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

kst/lpp

¶30

¶31

The District Collector, Villupuram

¶32

The Thasildar

¶33

Ulundurpet.

¶34

W.P.No.11332 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.11663 of 2019

¶35

CP(CO) CB(14/10/2020)

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

Page numbers

Annalakshmi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annalakshmi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Subramani Vs he Deputy Regisdtrar of cooperative societies

Kannammal Vs The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies

R.Jaisankar Vs The Director General of Training

Rajesh alias Rajesh krishnan Vs The District Registrar

B.Kanagaraj Vs The District collector

P.Ramasubburaj Vs The District Collector